Originally posted by mbod
View Post
OpenZFS 2.3-rc4 Released With Linux 6.12 LTS Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chugworth View PostThe changes that they've made to their data deduplication method sound like they're really polishing a turd. Constantly checking a table for duplicate blocks on every write sounds like a horrendous way to handle it. They should make a deduplication method that can work in the background or on a schedule and use block cloning rather than constantly maintaining some giant deduplication table.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Posthow many days until the next silent data corruption issue? Maybe all out of tree fanatics should stick with something that is in tree and does not suffer from such corruption issues. like bcachefs.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Volta View Post
Everything out of tree is useless trash.
you clearly showed that you have no understanding about Linux business.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mbod View Post
"in tree" is not a quality assurance. At least for out of tree you can decide if you want to upgrade your module to the newest version or if not. Sometimes it makes sense not to upgrade and wait to see if bugs in newer module versions pop up. This is not possible with in-tree.
btrfs (in-tree) had several data corruption bugs in the past. And you can not get around it because it is coming to you automatically with the kernel update. That is really a disaster. Even ext4 (in-tree) had silent data corruption bugs in the past (kernel 6.1.64/6.1.65). debian 12.3 release was delayed due to this.
bcachefs (in-tree) is so new that it is fair to assume that it will have its own bugs sooner or later.
You talk about zfs users as "out of tree fanatics"? I would rather call you an "in tree fanatic".
...also the mystery corp that used to fund Kent withdrew it's funding for unknown reasons...
Best take on openZFS is to listen(or read) Alan Jude's comments on them, the age of the bugs(one was traced back to Sun days and IIRC was only triggered by nvmes... a race condition IIRC which was VERY hard to trigger...), the fixes, etc.
I am FAR more likely to trust openZFS than bcachefs until it is truly tested and not just a hobby experimental FS... which it is, effectively, right now...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mbod View Post
"in tree" is not a quality assurance. At least for out of tree you can decide if you want to upgrade your module to the newest version or if not. Sometimes it makes sense not to upgrade and wait to see if bugs in newer module versions pop up. This is not possible with in-tree.
btrfs (in-tree) had several data corruption bugs in the past. And you can not get around it because it is coming to you automatically with the kernel update. That is really a disaster. Even ext4 (in-tree) had silent data corruption bugs in the past (kernel 6.1.64/6.1.65). debian 12.3 release was delayed due to this.
bcachefs (in-tree) is so new that it is fair to assume that it will have its own bugs sooner or later.
You talk about zfs users as "out of tree fanatics"? I would rather call you an "in tree fanatic".
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
There's a joke in all of that about the time I updated the kernel which updated BTRFS which just picked up Zstd support so I decided to run "btrfs filesystem defrag -czstd /" and found out the hard way that the GRUB BTRFS driver didn't have Zstd support.
* this post was made on an install using zstd compression on root. but dont read this.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mobadboy View Post
That's a feature, not a bug.
By using zstd, you're complicit in perpetuating the infinite hate / stupidity machines that are Facebook, Instagram, and the Metaverse. You're helping to provide testing for the most evil company on the planet. I hope you're happy with yourself. You should be ashamed.
* this post was made on an install using zstd compression on root. but dont read this.
Comment
-
Comment